(WA)Cops tase and arrest assault victum

[Mr Bean]

Brief summary of the story, deaf woman (Ms White) has guest over, the guest for whatever reason attacks Ms White and she calls the cops via her phone using ASL, the cops are told she's deaf, who she is and where she is expected to be. What happens during the attack until the cops get there is left out of the story (We don't know what happened to her attacker at all as in it's not reported yet). When the police arrive she goes out to greet them, the cops then tase her and arrest her and leave her in jail for two days before a prosecutor lets Ms White go.

Naturally parts of the story are in dispute but the basic outline, Ms White was attacked, she uses her ASL phone to call the police, the police come out, they tase her and throw her in jail is not in dispute.
Here's the full story

Police use Taser on deaf crime victim

By KIRO 7 Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne

TACOMA, Wash. —

KIRO TV’s investigative unit has discovered Tacoma police used force to arrest and handcuff an innocent deaf woman after she called 911 for their help.
Instead of an apology, she ended up bloody and in jail for nearly three days without an interpreter before a prosecutor declined to press charges.
After months of digging, investigative reporter Chris Halsne found significant discrepancies in the official police version of events leading up to Lashonn White’s arrest.
Late in the evening on April 6, White said she called for police assistance after a guest reportedly attacked her in her own apartment.
Deaf since birth, White used a special video-equipped phone, connected to a TV and a Web camera, to call 911. A certified American Sign Language interpreter on the other end verbally relayed White’s pleas for help to a Tacoma police dispatcher.

“I said, ‘Please hurry! There’s a person here beating me up,’” White explained to Halsne during a television interview last month.
A recording of White’s 911 call from that evening reveals her urgency.
“Right now! This is serious!”
“She’s fighting at me, then she chokes me. She’s coming right at me!”



Computer-aided dispatch (CAD) logs show Tacoma police officer Ryan Koskovich and his partner, Michael Young, were outside White’s apartment complex in about six minutes.
It also reflects that officers received texts along the way stating, “Person doing the hitting is a Sophia” and “Vict. is Lashonn White.”
In addition, it appears from internal police records obtained by KIRO Team 7 Investigators, Koskovich and his partner were repeatedly given information that the victim could not hear a thing.
On the 911 calls, White herself made it perfectly clear.
“I’m deaf. I can’t hear if they’re out front knocking or whatever … I can’t—are they going to the front or back? Where are the police at?”
Dispatch: “They want her to go outside the front door.”
“Oh, they’re here? Okay, I’m on my way to meet them. I’m going right now.”



White showed our investigative team the route up to the front door from her basement apartment. It’s only one flight of stairs -- a 30-second trip.
To her, what happened next defies common sense -- especially, for a woman with no criminal record, no arrests and just one minor driving violation on her record.
Within seconds of running outside to meet police, Officer Koskovich pulled his Taser and fired a two-barbed electric wire into White’s ribs and stomach.
“All I’m doing is waving my hands in the air, and the next thing I know, I’m on the ground and then handcuffed. It was almost like I blacked out. I was so dizzy and disoriented,” White said.



Witnesses said White began bleeding heavily from her knuckles and the right side of her face swelled up immediately after she hit the pavement following the Taser jolt.
Pictures acquired by Team 7 Investigators also show injuries to her cheek, chin, ribs, neck and arms.
Worse yet to White was the incredible confusion that came with suddenly being handcuffed, under arrest and without the ability to communicate with Tacoma officers, who had no sign language skills.
“The next thing I know, they took me to jail. Told me to stand up, you’re going to jail. I said, ‘What? What have I done?’ I couldn’t figure it out. I had no idea what was going on,” said White.
Officer Koskovich and his partner submitted nearly identical descriptions of the arrest in their reports.
Koskovich wrote in part: "I yelled for White to 'stop' and held my right hand up to signal for White to stop. White ignored my commands.”



He added, "White was making a loud grunting noise, had a piercing stare in her eyes and had a clenched right fist in the air."
Team 7 Investigators canvassed the area near the Taser incident for witnesses because Koskovich and White’s stories are so vastly different.
Margaret Sims’s apartment is right over the spot where White fell to the ground after being tased. She said it was around 11:30 at night and dark, but she heard Lashonn screaming in pain and ran to the balcony.

“I hollered down and said, ‘She’s deaf and can’t speak!’”
Sims says she went down to the street and spoke with officers while Lashonn was still in handcuffs. She told us during an on-camera interview that the police officers at the scene admitted there was a misunderstanding.
“They had tased her because he thought she was coming at him, but what she was doing was running to him. But he said, ‘stop’ and he didn’t put his hand up. He just said, ‘stop’ and she couldn’t understand that,” replied Sims.

Another apartment tenant, Geraldine Warren, said she also heard the commotion and talked to police.
“They just told her to halt. She kept running, she can’t hear—she’s deaf. I said, ‘Aren’t you supposed to say halt like that?’” asked Warren holding up her right hand.
Tacoma police arrested Lashonn on two criminal charges, simple assault and obstruction of a public servant (law enforcement officer). Then they carted her off to jail. She spent 60 hours there – also without an interpreter- before a city prosecutor reviewed her case and asked that charges not be filed at all.
We asked KIRO TV police conduct consultant and former Bellevue police chief Don Van Blaricom to review the conflicting witness and officer accounts of Lashonn’s arrest, plus the officer’s official reports.
He told Halsne the officer’s reports “were obviously written in concert, after the fact, to CYA.”
“The question to ask yourself is: why would she run at police in an assaultive manner when she had asked for them to be there and was going out to meet them?” Van Blaricom wondered aloud.
“A Taser is a very useful device under circumstances which necessitate its use, but it’s too easy to use and frequently used too quickly. This looks like one of those cases,” Van Blaricom told Halsne during an interview.

State law on the employment of ASL interpreters for deaf suspects is clear.

RCW 2.42.120 (4)requires law enforcement agencies conducting an investigation to “appoint and pay for a qualified interpreter throughout the investigation.”

RCW 2.42.120 (5) states “If a hearing impaired person is arrested for an alleged violation of a criminal law, the arresting officer or the officer’s supervisor shall, at the earliest possible time, procure and arrange payment for a qualified interpreter for any notification of rights, warning, interrogation, or taking of a statement. No employee of the law enforcement agency who has responsibilities other than interpreting may be appointed as a qualified interpreter.”
White said despite her repeated requests to police for a certified ASL interpreter, one was never provided.

The story is complex and the officers at the scene clearly had a different point of view. KIRO 7 Investigators have tried to get their explanation for six weeks and while we've talked to Tacoma Police on the phone they would not respond to the allegations. We've also sent them emails and left several messages.

If Tacoma police want to explain their side of the story, we'll have a follow-up.

Now there are questions that are the cops say, Ms White says at several points. For example did the police simply yell halt at a deaf woman who can't hear them or did the policeman extend his hand and yell halt at a deaf woman. Should he have gone directly to the taser, more importantly why exactly was she arrested if she never touched the police officers and she went down hard after the first tase. The cops say she was unarmed and not exactly a two hundred pound MMA fighter so I'm wonder why they arrested her at all.

But the biggest glaring issue to me is in addition to the assault charges and the arrest was why a ASL interpreter was never provided. State law dictates you can't book anyone into the system without an ASL trained interpreter on hand because she can not understand the half dozen questions you get asked when your being arrested. When being arrested the process is not conducted under a vow of silence, there are several heath and welfare questions one must asked before throwing someone in jail, even simple instructions during booking which be pretty hard to give without an ASL person on hand. So the fact she was arrested and tossed in jail and the police admit they never sent down one of their ASL people is pretty bad for the department.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If the prosecutor decided to foolishly press the matter, I would think that said error would be enough to have the charges dismissed. I know if I were a judge presented with those charges and a plea of "Motion to Dismiss" (Yes, I know you cannot actually plead that at arraignment. I dont think anyway. Maybe on the basis of legal insufficiency?), along with the events... Well, I might be tempted to hold the prosecutor in contempt for a while.

[Kamakazie Sith]

White showed our investigative team the route up to the front door from her basement apartment. It’s only one flight of stairs -- a 30-second trip.
To her, what happened next defies common sense -- especially, for a woman with no criminal record, no arrests and just one minor driving violation on her record.
Within seconds of running outside to meet police, Officer Koskovich pulled his Taser and fired a two-barbed electric wire into White’s ribs and stomach.
“All I’m doing is waving my hands in the air, and the next thing I know, I’m on the ground and then handcuffed. It was almost like I blacked out. I was so dizzy and disoriented,” White said.

Did the police know what Lashonn White and Sophia looked like? If they didn't then it makes sense why they took defensive action but I don't think the taser was the right use of force choice. I think the taser is overused and this is a perfect example of that.

Witnesses said White began bleeding heavily from her knuckles and the right side of her face swelled up immediately after she hit the pavement following the Taser jolt.
Pictures acquired by Team 7 Investigators also show injuries to her cheek, chin, ribs, neck and arms.
Worse yet to White was the incredible confusion that came with suddenly being handcuffed, under arrest and without the ability to communicate with Tacoma officers, who had no sign language skills.
“The next thing I know, they took me to jail. Told me to stand up, you’re going to jail. I said, ‘What? What have I done?’ I couldn’t figure it out. I had no idea what was going on,” said White.
Officer Koskovich and his partner submitted nearly identical descriptions of the arrest in their reports.
Koskovich wrote in part: "I yelled for White to 'stop' and held my right hand up to signal for White to stop. White ignored my commands.”

He added, "White was making a loud grunting noise, had a piercing stare in her eyes and had a clenched right fist in the air."

I don't think a hand signal is a good substitute for a verbal command to stop. Lashonn was obviously very excited due to her circumstances and with two officers there's nothing wrong with going hands on and using soft control techniques.

Still, that's a training and policy issue. If you're responding to a fight call and someone comes running at you with clenched fist it isn't unreasonable to consider them to be a threat and/or the suspect.

Team 7 Investigators canvassed the area near the Taser incident for witnesses because Koskovich and White’s stories are so vastly different.
Margaret Sims’s apartment is right over the spot where White fell to the ground after being tased. She said it was around 11:30 at night and dark, but she heard Lashonn screaming in pain and ran to the balcony.

“I hollered down and said, ‘She’s deaf and can’t speak!’”
Sims says she went down to the street and spoke with officers while Lashonn was still in handcuffs. She told us during an on-camera interview that the police officers at the scene admitted there was a misunderstanding.
“They had tased her because he thought she was coming at him, but what she was doing was running to him. But he said, ‘stop’ and he didn’t put his hand up. He just said, ‘stop’ and she couldn’t understand that,” replied Sims.

Why are they reporting something Sims did not witness? Sims clearly states she heard Lashonn screaming in pain - which means she was tased at this point and on the ground. So, how could Sims know he didn't put his hand up for her to stop.

Another apartment tenant, Geraldine Warren, said she also heard the commotion and talked to police.
“They just told her to halt. She kept running, she can’t hear—she’s deaf. I said, ‘Aren’t you supposed to say halt like that?’” asked Warren holding up her right hand.
Tacoma police arrested Lashonn on two criminal charges, simple assault and obstruction of a public servant (law enforcement officer). Then they carted her off to jail. She spent 60 hours there – also without an interpreter- before a city prosecutor reviewed her case and asked that charges not be filed at all.
We asked KIRO TV police conduct consultant and former Bellevue police chief Don Van Blaricom to review the conflicting witness and officer accounts of Lashonn’s arrest, plus the officer’s official reports.
He told Halsne the officer’s reports “were obviously written in concert, after the fact, to CYA.”
“The question to ask yourself is: why would she run at police in an assaultive manner when she had asked for them to be there and was going out to meet them?” Van Blaricom wondered aloud.
“A Taser is a very useful device under circumstances which necessitate its use, but it’s too easy to use and frequently used too quickly. This looks like one of those cases,” Van Blaricom told Halsne during an interview.

It states Geraldine Warren heard the commotion. It isn't clear if Geraldine saw it as well. If the witnesses (two??) didn't see it then how are their accounts conflicting with the officers statements?

Also, in my five years I've never written a report before, or during the fact. It has always been after. If he's suggesting the two officers got together to ensure that their statements were consistent then he'll need more evidence the fact that they're consistent. It only makes sense that two peoples statements would be consistent if that is what actually happened.

State law on the employment of ASL interpreters for deaf suspects is clear.

RCW 2.42.120 (4)requires law enforcement agencies conducting an investigation to “appoint and pay for a qualified interpreter throughout the investigation.”

Sounds like they would need one for the original call - the assault investigation. That seems to have been completely forgotten.

RCW 2.42.120 (5) states “If a hearing impaired person is arrested for an alleged violation of a criminal law, the arresting officer or the officer’s supervisor shall, at the earliest possible time, procure and arrange payment for a qualified interpreter for any notification of rights, warning, interrogation, or taking of a statement. No employee of the law enforcement agency who has responsibilities other than interpreting may be appointed as a qualified interpreter.”
White said despite her repeated requests to police for a certified ASL interpreter, one was never provided.

Technically her charges wouldn't require notification of rights, warning, interrogation, or taking of a statement because they officers are the victims.

However, I think one should have been provided to talk with Lashonn and figure out what was going on.

Now there are questions that are the cops say, Ms White says at several points. For example did the police simply yell halt at a deaf woman who can't hear them or did the policeman extend his hand and yell halt at a deaf woman. Should he have gone directly to the taser, more importantly why exactly was she arrested if she never touched the police officers and she went down hard after the first tase. The cops say she was unarmed and not exactly a two hundred pound MMA fighter so I'm wonder why they arrested her at all.

I think this entire incident is a training and policy issue. I don't believe the reaction by the officers was unreasonable based on their training or malicious. We weren't there though so I don't know what Lashonn looked like or sounded like when she was running at them but I'd like to see the taser reserved for use against persons that could reasonably be considered dangerous.

I'd like to know why she was arrested as well. Just because you use force against someone doesn't mean you have to arrest them. Again, we don't have both sides so there's a big piece of this story missing.

But the biggest glaring issue to me is in addition to the assault charges and the arrest was why a ASL interpreter was never provided. State law dictates you can't book anyone into the system without an ASL trained interpreter on hand because she can not understand the half dozen questions you get asked when your being arrested. When being arrested the process is not conducted under a vow of silence, there are several heath and welfare questions one must asked before throwing someone in jail, even simple instructions during booking which be pretty hard to give without an ASL person on hand. So the fact she was arrested and tossed in jail and the police admit they never sent down one of their ASL people is pretty bad for the department.

[/quote]

I don't see the part where it says "prior to booking into jail a ASL interpreter will be provided". It says one must be provided for any notification of rights, warning, interrogation, or taking of a statement. But not prior to booking into jail.

In my state the jail is handled by the county and they have their own ASL interpreter that handles the booking questions. I'm a city cop so I wouldn't say we provided one when county provided one.

[White Haven]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but wouldn't Miranda count as a notification of rights? I understand that it's not going to be possible to have an ASL interpreter at every arrest, but it would seem to be pretty fucking critical to provide one as soon as possible post-arrest to correct that, no?

[Block]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but wouldn't Miranda count as a notification of rights? I understand that it's not going to be possible to have an ASL interpreter at every arrest, but it would seem to be pretty fucking critical to provide one as soon as possible post-arrest to correct that, no?

I suppose they could hand her their card with the Miranda rights on it and let her read it? I have no idea if they did this or anything else, but I'd think that'd be a simple solution to that issue.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but wouldn't Miranda count as a notification of rights? I understand that it's not going to be possible to have an ASL interpreter at every arrest, but it would seem to be pretty fucking critical to provide one as soon as possible post-arrest to correct that, no?

Miranda is only required when two conditions are met. You're in custody (this one is met) and being questioned/interrogated.

I don't have to read miranda to every person I arrest. That's hollywood nonsense.

Here's a good article on that;

You didn't read me my rights! Your arrest is invalid!!!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

...Aaaand that's how T-town rolls.

[White Haven]

Touche, KS, I was mistaken on that point. I do, however, find it hard to believe that the police had legitimate probable cause to hold someone without charge for two days without even either talking to her or (given that the original arrest was apparently due to their honest and understandable ignorance of her identity) even knowing who she was.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Touche, KS, I was mistaken on that point. I do, however, find it hard to believe that the police had legitimate probable cause to hold someone without charge for two days without even either talking to her or (given that the original arrest was apparently due to their honest and understandable ignorance of her identity) even knowing who she was.

That part sounds very unusual to me but then so did that DEA incident with that poor man that was left in his cell for five days.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Touche, KS, I was mistaken on that point. I do, however, find it hard to believe that the police had legitimate probable cause to hold someone without charge for two days without even either talking to her or (given that the original arrest was apparently due to their honest and understandable ignorance of her identity) even knowing who she was.

That part sounds very unusual to me but then so did that DEA incident with that poor man that was left in his cell for five days.

This shit sounds like a massive ADA lawsuit to me.

1) They knew their victim was deaf, and stressed.

2) A hand motion not in ASL may not work the way one intends.

3) A deaf person waving her arms can readily be mistaken for a fist (or she is just doing the equivalent of yelling for them. My best friend's parents are deaf. They got into an argument once and were "yelling". Cops came by thinking it was domestic violence from a distance.)

4) An unarmed woman vs two cops. Yes, pull out the tazer instead of physically restraining her. Dangerously lazy.

5) Did they not check her ID and notice "Hey, this is our victim. Maybe we should get a statement from her about her assault and see what actually happened when she came at us, because that does not logically make sense. Why would our victim try to attack us?"? Instead, they locked her in jail for two days without charge and presumably during that time did not follow up on the fact that she was assaulted.

6) They did not explain to her what was going on, why she was being held, why the people she thought were there to help her instead shocked her into unconsciousness and physical injury etc. If they did, she did not hear a damn word of it.

This is a "training issue" in the sense that these officers, and in fact, the department, are mind-numbingly incompetent and/or trogolodytes. They violated state law regarding how one treats deaf people, they assaulted their own victim (and yes, it was assault. Even if we grant the officers truth in their description, which I am willing to do, she was not assaulting them and was incapable of understanding their directions in either case), and I am pretty sure their treatment of her also violates federal law.

They need a good lawsuit. They need one Bad.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This shit sounds like a massive ADA lawsuit to me.

In what way? Have you read the entire thread?

1) They knew their victim was deaf, and stressed.

2) A hand motion not in ASL may not work the way one intends.

Agreed on both. However, as I already explained they did not know what Lashonn looks like. It isn't unreasonable for them to consider Lashonn a threat when she was running at them with a clenched fist. The issue here is mostly the charges and the overuse of the taser. However, the overuse part is my opinion and may or may not be shared with local law. Many jurisdictions consider the use of a taser against any individual wanting to fight as reasonable.

3) A deaf person waving her arms can readily be mistaken for a fist (or she is just doing the equivalent of yelling for them. My best friend's parents are deaf. They got into an argument once and were "yelling". Cops came by thinking it was domestic violence from a distance.)

4) An unarmed woman vs two cops. Yes, pull out the tazer instead of physically restraining her. Dangerously lazy.

Most policies regarding the use of a taser do not make exceptions or rules regarding sex. In fact, most taser policies are deemed reasonable if the person being subjected to the taser was behaving aggressively. Running at someone with clenched fists and "ignoring commands" could easily be taken as aggressive action. Also remember that they did not know what Sophia looked like and prior to disconnecting Lashonn made no indication that Sophia had left.

5) Did they not check her ID and notice "Hey, this is our victim. Maybe we should get a statement from her about her assault and see what actually happened when she came at us, because that does not logically make sense. Why would our victim try to attack us?"? Instead, they locked her in jail for two days without charge and presumably during that time did not follow up on the fact that she was assaulted.

They would have had to check her ID or identify her to book her into jail. Unless they booked her under Jane Doe, which I highly doubt.

They did charge her. It clearly states her two charges in the article. Simple assault and obstruction of a public servant

Anyway, this is a huge issue for me. I don't understand why they would go that direction unless there is something this article is not revealing to us.

6) They did not explain to her what was going on, why she was being held, why the people she thought were there to help her instead shocked her into unconsciousness and physical injury etc. If they did, she did not hear a damn word of it.

Perhaps. That's her side of the story. I've arrested people that I've explained to them why they're being arrested many many times and they still ask "what am I being arrested for, sir?"

This is a "training issue" in the sense that these officers, and in fact, the department, are mind-numbingly incompetent and/or trogolodytes. They violated state law regarding how one treats deaf people, they assaulted their own victim (and yes, it was assault. Even if we grant the officers truth in their description, which I am willing to do, she was not assaulting them and was incapable of understanding their directions in either case), and I am pretty sure their treatment of her also violates federal law.

Can you cite the specific federal law they violated?

I'm inclined to agree that they failed to provide a ASL interpreter to investigate the initial call.

Again, see my explanation regarding the use of tasers.

[Terralthra]

6) They did not explain to her what was going on, why she was being held, why the people she thought were there to help her instead shocked her into unconsciousness and physical injury etc. If they did, she did not hear a damn word of it.

Perhaps. That's her side of the story. I've arrested people that I've explained to them why they're being arrested many many times and they still ask "what am I being arrested for, sir?"

Unless you're disputing her deafness, I don't see how "she couldn't hear them" is a matter of she-said/they-said.

[Alyrium Denryle]

In what way? Have you read the entire thread?

Yes. And the "Not providing an interpreter" thing. They did not do this, and this is not her side, but the side of an independent journalist.

However, the overuse part is my opinion and may or may not be shared with local law. Many jurisdictions consider the use of a taser against any individual wanting to fight as reasonable.

See, I would say that a taser is over-use. I find the presumption that she "wanted to fight" or could be reasonably be thought to want to fight to be unreasonable due to the following:

1) description or no, they knew she would be out front, because they asked her to be. Therefore, the presumption should have been that they were dealing with a scared victim who cannot hear what they say, rather than a perp who thinks she can (for some insane reason) run up and attack two armed men.
2) waving one's arms in the air, even with clenched fists is not a threatening gesture. Not unless you are a chimpanzee, which brings us back to the trogolodytes thing (pun intended). There are certainly threatening hand-gestures that can be interpreted as trying to fight. I cannot think of anything that would be done at range with hands above the shoulders.
3) An unarmed woman is not a threat to two male officers. Sorry, but unless she is on the east german woman's wrestling team circa 1980, they can use soft physical restraint techniques. Resorting to less than lethal weapons that can cause serious injury in a situation that is is ambiguous at worst (rather than just fucking stupid, which is what I think their reasoning ability sums up to) is not a good risk. Department policy--whatever it may be--be damned.

They did charge her. It clearly states her two charges in the article. Simple assault and obstruction of a public servant

Which is why I also said "and if they did, she did not understand what they were saying".

Anyway, this is a huge issue for me. I don't understand why they would go that direction unless there is something this article is not revealing to us.

Really god damn simple. The police--perhaps motivated by gut-instinct that causes them to incorrectly assess body language as hostile, I can see that happening but we cannot call it "reasonable" in a legal sense--tased their victim into unconsciousness and injury. They checked her ID, and realized they done-gone-fucked-up. So they charge her with assaulting them and obstructing her own call for help. They then spend two days trying to cover their own ass by refusing her an interpreter in violation of state law, and hope that she does not have the presence of mind to pursue the matter further via legal means, or by finding an investigative journalist, while having the "official" report to discredit her with. One they probably wrote in tandem so they were mutually consistent.

This is the most parsimoneous course of events that makes sense that I can think of. If you have something better, by all means share it.

Perhaps. That's her side of the story. I've arrested people that I've explained to them why they're being arrested many many times and they still ask "what am I being arrested for, sir?"

Remember, the deafness? If they provided it in writing, would they not have also had to talk to her, which would require an interpreter? Provide her with counsel--that would require an interpreter? No. They were covering their own asses by violating her civil rights.

Think about this for a minute

*ZAT-THUD*
"You are under arrest for such and such"
--Deaf. Cannot hear charges--
At booking:
"Answer these questions"
--deaf, answers written questions I guess. *writes on the sheet "why am I here?"--
--either provided no explanation, or is provided one in writing--
--wants to make statement, because she obviously did not insult or obstruct the officers coming to help her, nor intend to do so, and wants her assailant prosecuted. Signs, or writes to that effect... this would require an interpreter."
"Shit she wants to make a statement, that would require an interpreter."
"Fuck that shit, we dont want to take a statement."
--request ignored--

Can you think of a way they could have gone through this process, with her as anything other than a hyper-compliant prisoner who is little more than a meat popsicle, such that they could NOT have violated her civil rights six way from sunday?

I tried. I really did. I cannot.

Can you cite the specific federal law they violated?

why yes. Yes I can.

ADA 1990, as amended.

Sec. 12131. Definitions

As used in this subchapter:

(1) Public entity

The term "public entity" means

(A) any State or local government;

(B) any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government; and

(C) the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any commuter authority (as defined in section 24102(4) of title 49).

(2) Qualified individual with a disability

The term "qualified individual with a disability" means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.

This bit establishes that the ADA applies to the police in their enforcement duties. Additionally, she was unable to rely on the protection of police, because their training is insufficient to deal with deaf people. Said insufficiency lead to her being tased, her assailant not being prosecuted as far as we are aware, two days of her life lost, and a false arrest. All because of that pesky language barrier. I will get into that specifically.

Sec. 12132. Discrimination

Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.

Yeah. Not providing an interpreter despite her deafness, thus eliminating her ability to so much as hear the charges against her, defend herself, or address the circumstances of her assault. Pretty sure that counts.

[Zaune]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't police officer who wear holstered sidearms at all times somewhat constrained in when they can risk using physical restraint instead of tasers or pepper-spray, lest the suspect make a grab for their weapon? I know modern holster designs make this quite difficult, but it's not impossible to at least set the gun off into the officer's leg.

This does not excuse subsequent events, however; even if the poor woman left her ID in the house when she was taken into custody and the ASL interpreter was off sick, this could and should have been cleared up simply by providing her with pen and paper.

[Terralthra]

Not to throw too much speculation out there, but the ASL sign for "help [me]" involves the active hand in a closed fist (thumb extended).

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not to throw too much speculation out there, but the ASL sign for "help [me]" involves the active hand in a closed fist (thumb extended).

I will, because with that information to use as a prior, the Bayesian model converges on a solution that makes sense.

In Tacoma, it is apparently assault for a deaf person to seek help.

[Gaidin]

It's probably assault for a deaf person to seek help from any cop who is walking into a situation where he expects to deal with assault. ASL ain't exactly required to graduate.

[Questor]

http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-signs/h/help.htm

It's not that close, but it does (in this context) seem like a sign that could have been better thought out.

Now if she were using the alternate sign detailed at the bottom, then there's more possibility of confusion.

The real problem is that even when dealing with people who know, or should know, that there is the possibility of dealing with those who are deaf, a lot of people simply DO NOT make the connection that the person "ignoring them" might be deaf. Spoken language is such a part of the shared expectation that it is easy to forget that there are people out there who can't participate in it.

That's not an excuse, but may be part of an explanation for the initial issue. Doesn't do anything for anything that happened AFTER the initial contact, particularly since there are a few gestures that (in my limited experience) deaf people use to indicate their status, and they're pretty intuitive.

[Kamakazie Sith]

See, I would say that a taser is over-use. I find the presumption that she "wanted to fight" or could be reasonably be thought to want to fight to be unreasonable due to the following:

1) description or no, they knew she would be out front, because they asked her to be. Therefore, the presumption should have been that they were dealing with a scared victim who cannot hear what they say, rather than a perp who thinks she can (for some insane reason) run up and attack two armed men.

I forgot about that part. That's a good point, AD. It puts all other issues that I have off to the side in the irrelevant category. Assuming the information is accurate.**

**A friend of mine brought the credibility of the journalist into question so I've been researching him. He's been accused of leaving out important information and making things up to add sensationalism to his articles. If I find something credible on it I'll post it but until then I'll be conceding this matter.

2) waving one's arms in the air, even with clenched fists is not a threatening gesture. Not unless you are a chimpanzee, which brings us back to the trogolodytes thing (pun intended). There are certainly threatening hand-gestures that can be interpreted as trying to fight. I cannot think of anything that would be done at range with hands above the shoulders.

Yeah, I agree. I focused too much on the clenched fist part. The totality of the officers description does not describe a threatening person or at least a threat justifying the use of a taser. If they were concerned soft control would have been much more reasonable.

3) An unarmed woman is not a threat to two male officers. Sorry, but unless she is on the east german woman's wrestling team circa 1980, they can use soft physical restraint techniques. Resorting to less than lethal weapons that can cause serious injury in a situation that is is ambiguous at worst (rather than just fucking stupid, which is what I think their reasoning ability sums up to) is not a good risk. Department policy--whatever it may be--be damned.

I disagree. An unarmed female caused extensive injuries to a UHP trooper a couple years back with nothing in her blood but pure determination. In fact that UHP trooper tasered this lady but when she fell her fall broke the connection so she got right back up and charged the trooper and was scratching and biting and just wouldn't stop.

You're making an assumption about people. Never underestimate someone.

Just to be clear I do support the use of a taser against anyone but an unarmed child (under 13) who is trying to actively resist. I have the right to make my arrest injury free and that includes free from scratches delivered by aggressive females. We might have to disagree on this subject but the law is on my side. That being said I do think taser policy needs more refinement to control the possibility of overuse.

Really god damn simple. The police--perhaps motivated by gut-instinct that causes them to incorrectly assess body language as hostile, I can see that happening but we cannot call it "reasonable" in a legal sense--tased their victim into unconsciousness and injury. They checked her ID, and realized they done-gone-fucked-up. So they charge her with assaulting them and obstructing her own call for help. They then spend two days trying to cover their own ass by refusing her an interpreter in violation of state law, and hope that she does not have the presence of mind to pursue the matter further via legal means, or by finding an investigative journalist, while having the "official" report to discredit her with. One they probably wrote in tandem so they were mutually consistent.

I'm not opening the argument up again but I want to be clear on something. Use of force with police is reviewed under the guidelines of what a reasonable officer would do under the same circumstances. Basically, the idea behind that is your typical citizen doesn't understand the realities of combat. We've seen that here on the forum - just now you thinking that an unarmed female is no threat. Maybe not a lethal threat sure but females can cause injury and it can be extensive. That UHP trooper had some nasty scatches from that lady. So, when you say we can't call it reasonable under in a legal sense...make sure you apply the appropriate legal standard.

To reiterate just in case my earlier concession is glazed over because of what I said above - Due to the officers asking White to come outside they should have been mentally prepared to deal with an excited victim that is unable to communicate. Thus under the reasonable officer standard I think their actions are unreasonable.

This is the most parsimoneous course of events that makes sense that I can think of. If you have something better, by all means share it.

The arrest after the fact makes me side with you.

Remember, the deafness? If they provided it in writing, would they not have also had to talk to her, which would require an interpreter? Provide her with counsel--that would require an interpreter? No. They were covering their own asses by violating her civil rights.

Think about this for a minute

Can you think of a way they could have gone through this process, with her as anything other than a hyper-compliant prisoner who is little more than a meat popsicle, such that they could NOT have violated her civil rights six way from sunday?

I tried. I really did. I cannot.

It's reasonable to assume that she requested communication so I withdraw that earlier argument.

Yeah. Not providing an interpreter despite her deafness, thus eliminating her ability to so much as hear the charges against her, defend herself, or address the circumstances of her assault. Pretty sure that counts.

Just a nitpick but under the information that Mr Bean listed the department isn't required to provide an interpreter to communicate charges. One is only required when conducting an investigation, notification of rights, warning, interrogation, or taking of a statement.

[Kamakazie Sith]

http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-signs/h/help.htm

It's not that close, but it does (in this context) seem like a sign that could have been better thought out.

Now if she were using the alternate sign detailed at the bottom, then there's more possibility of confusion.

The real problem is that even when dealing with people who know, or should know, that there is the possibility of dealing with those who are deaf, a lot of people simply DO NOT make the connection that the person "ignoring them" might be deaf. Spoken language is such a part of the shared expectation that it is easy to forget that there are people out there who can't participate in it.

That's not an excuse, but may be part of an explanation for the initial issue. Doesn't do anything for anything that happened AFTER the initial contact, particularly since there are a few gestures that (in my limited experience) deaf people use to indicate their status, and they're pretty intuitive.

This is why I originally called this a training issue but it goes way beyond that when you consider the fact that the police asked White to come outside. Had that not happened then I'd still be focusing on this being a training issue and not a gross negligence/incompetence issue.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Just a nitpick but under the information that Mr Bean listed the department isn't required to provide an interpreter to communicate charges. One is only required when conducting an investigation, notification of rights, warning, interrogation, or taking of a statement.

That is state, not federal. Federal law is very broad in its requirement for non-discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and it applies to all public services. Any function that would normally be performed by said public service must not be denied to a disabled person on account of, for example, blindness or deafness. State agencies are not exempt. Sovereign immunity is waived.

Any time they issued directions to her, asked her a verbal question, informed her of charges, anything, they would be required to make "reasonable accomodations" so as to remove the communication barrier. Thus, denying her an interpreter when she inevitably communicated with them as such regarding the circumstances that found her shocked and thrown into a holding cell, was a violation of the ADA and actionable.

I disagree. An unarmed female caused extensive injuries to a UHP trooper a couple years back with nothing in her blood but pure determination. In fact that UHP trooper tasered this lady but when she fell her fall broke the connection so she got right back up and charged the trooper and was scratching and biting and just wouldn't stop.

Fair enough. Fairly impressive too.

I have the right to make my arrest injury free and that includes free from scratches delivered by aggressive females.

Well sure. However, someone does need to be actively resisting yes?

I can understand the use of a taser if you need to subdue someone who is resisting arrest. However, when someone is not resisting, which this woman clearly was not? No physical contact was made. It is certainly possible that my impression of actively resisting is somewhat more narrowly defined than what has been operationally defined for police officers in training. I am prepared to concede that. On the other hand, these officers were expecting this woman. They expected that verbal commands would not work. They were not acting reasonably because they did not use the information they had readily at their disposal.

To reiterate just in case my earlier concession is glazed over because of what I said above - Due to the officers asking White to come outside they should have been mentally prepared to deal with an excited victim that is unable to communicate. Thus under the reasonable officer standard I think their actions are unreasonable.

Excellent.

So, when you say we can't call it reasonable under in a legal sense...make sure you apply the appropriate legal standard.

That is fair.

[D.Turtle]

Man Bean, can't you at least give us a link?

KIRO TV Story

There. Kinda useful. Because then people could click on that, and see alongside the story they have the arrest report, dispatch log and the 911 call posted. Could be useful for viewing the officer's side of the story, don't you think?

Arrest Report (PDF)
Dispatch Log (PDF)
911 Call through interpreter (Still Video)

So from the report it looks like when the officers arrived they were first contacted by a Ms Johnson (the "Sophia" of the call?) and she said she was afraid. At that point apparently Ms White came out and was "running" while Ms. Johnson appeared to be scared. So from that is it not possible the officers thought Ms White was trying to attack Ms Johnson? That, with the fact somebody else who was deaf first met the officers is probably why they didn't register Ms White initially as being the caller. So there's that.

EDIT: Which, I could point out, was not at all mentioned in the article. Even though they have the report posted on their page. So...yeah. About that bit where KS mentioned the reporter has "been accused of leaving out important information"...

Kamakazie Sith, you've got the experience here so you could probably give a good perspective on what the dispatch log says and what the officer related in his report.

[Serafina]

It's probably assault for a deaf person to seek help from any cop who is walking into a situation where he expects to deal with assault. ASL ain't exactly required to graduate.

What's wrong with teaching cops the basics of ASL? "Help me" is hardly a complicated sign, or one cops will never come across.

We recently had a large LGBT-event. All the organizers learned basic sign language so that they could direct dead people to the sign language translators we had. That was done in three one-hour seminars over the course of one week, about two months before the actual event, and it stuck.

I fail to see how that is an undue burden for a police officer.
Do police officers learn basic sentences and words in spanish (or other common languages)? If they do they should do the same in ASL as well, at least enough to recognize it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

EDIT: Which, I could point out, was not at all mentioned in the article. Even though they have the report posted on their page. So...yeah. About that bit where KS mentioned the reporter has "been accused of leaving out important information"...

The article doesn't mention Ms. Johnson at all nor does it mention that Ms. White was running at the officers "full sprint". Those are critical details that any journalist should include when writing such a controversial article. Also, it sounds like they did speak with Ms. Johnson and Ms. White. The report contains a brief summary for their statements including a Miranda warning waiver signed by Ms. White.

The description of Ms. White's actions leads me to believe that this is an example of the taser being used when another method could have been applied, however, I can't call its use unreasonable at this point. The officers had an involved party claiming to be injured by a violent attack by the other person that was now running at them and apparently sprinting. As I said before all police have a right to control a situation without getting injured. In hindsight, I think soft physical control of Ms. White would have worked but I'm not going to fault them for not being able to read her mind.

Kamakazie Sith, you've got the experience here so you could probably give a good perspective on what the dispatch log says and what the officer related in his report.

The officers report confirms some of the information relayed in the dispatch log. I don't agree with the reasoning the officer uses to assign Ms. White as the primary aggressor. We, and the officers, do not know what Ms. White's intentions were. Just because she was "sprinting" over to them does not mean she was the primary aggressor.

[Gaidin]

What's wrong with teaching cops the basics of ASL? "Help me" is hardly a complicated sign, or one cops will never come across.

We recently had a large LGBT-event. All the organizers learned basic sign language so that they could direct dead people to the sign language translators we had. That was done in three one-hour seminars over the course of one week, about two months before the actual event, and it stuck.

Absolutely nothing. Good luck having them remember it when they don't have to use it a few times a week. Even if you make them take bi-monthly refresher courses. The stuff's not instinct to someone that doesn't use it constantly. And police walking into an assault situation for which they are specifically trained and drilled in a different fashion for is a bit different than walking into an LGBT event for which you(plural) specifically learned those basics.

I fail to see how that is an undue burden for a police officer.
Do police officers learn basic sentences and words in spanish (or other common languages)? If they do they should do the same in ASL as well, at least enough to recognize it.

I didn't say it was an undue burden. I said they don't know it and are trained to respond in a fashion that doesn't account for ASL in the first place. You want to make an argument for future policy, that's one thing and something I'd likely get behind. You want to bitch about these officers' pre-arrest behavior(I agree that their actions after the arrest suck, lets be clear) when there's no such policy or program in place that's another thing altogether.